FTA- There is zero legal or ethical justification for denying a suspect in custody this fundamental right

Was there still a danger that he was going to die at the time? If so, I'm okay with trying to find out if there were other present threats he knew of, even if it meant infringing on his 5th amendment rights. Not sure about that being a legal justification, but it seems like an ethical one IMO.

But that controversy was merely about whether he would be advised of his Miranda rights. Now, the Los Angeles Times, almost in passing, reports something which, if true, would be a much more serious violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings

That's some nice reporting there, Glenn. Got an entire article out of an unsubstantiated claim.

scottydoesntknow:But that controversy was merely about whether he would be advised of his Miranda rights. Now, the Los Angeles Times, almost in passing, reports something which, if true, would be a much more serious violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings

That's some nice reporting there, Glenn. Got an entire article out of an unsubstantiated claim.

But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

is this the same as when they didn't read him his miranda rights which turned out to be made up, or when he was arrested on the following tuesday, or when he was a guy on a roof, or when he was two highschool track runners, or when....

Triumph:But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

Yeah, about that whole "rights of the accused" business: we can't afford to destroy that. It's not about the rights of some shiathead we all hate, it's about the rights of the rest of us. If you think you can't become "the accused" in an instant, think again. If you think law enforcement, prosecutors, grand juries, and the media can't destroy your life, reputation and livelihood, and take from you everything you love or have earned, while making your friends and neighbors and the public despise you, think again. If you think "the authorities" give a shiat about you or your rights, think again. Even considering how much nobody likes this moron, the "authorities", whoever that really was, did it wrong, and we can't afford to let it pass. Let's hope the courts make it plain that "the system" still finds it necessary to guarantee the rights of the accused, knowing that this will have to be forced upon law enforcement forever.

Doktor_Zhivago:is this the same as when they didn't read him his miranda rights which turned out to be made up, or when he was arrested on the following tuesday, or when he was a guy on a roof, or when he was two highschool track runners, or when....

scottydoesntknow 2013-04-29 04:53:22 PM But that controversy was merely about whether he would be advised of his Miranda rights. Now, the Los Angeles Times, almost in passing, reports something which, if true, would be a much more serious violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings That's some nice reporting there, Glenn. Got an entire article out of an unsubstantiated claim.

The source article is pretty clear that the claim comes from a congressional oversight hearing.

ManateeGag:Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.

He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.

The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. Urgh that's like the apotheosis of far-Left douchebaggery.

If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.

Triumph:But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

He's already been given two public defenders, he doesn't get to choose his own lawyer.

SkinnyHead:He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.

Bontesla:SkinnyHead: He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.

Fruit of the poison tree doctrine...

...doesn't apply to Miranda violations or ignoring a request for counsel. It only applies if he is forced to give an involuntary statement.

SkinnyHead:Bontesla: SkinnyHead: He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.

Fruit of the poison tree doctrine...

...doesn't apply to Miranda violations or ignoring a request for counsel. It only applies if he is forced to give an involuntary statement.

would YOU want to take that sort of risk? there was plenty of time to do this one by the numbers. they should have gotten him a lawyer.

So, he knew enough about his rights to demand a lawyer, but didn't know that he could remain silent (see the other stories floating around that he stopped talking once he was given his Miranda warnings)? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Bontesla:SkinnyHead: He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.

Fruit of the poison tree doctrine...

That would only apply (generally) to evidence obtained as a result of things that he said. All of the videos, witnesses, forensic evidence, etc., that the feds already have on this guy, independent of anything he has said in his interrogation, would not be fruit of the poisonous tree.

El_Perro:So, he knew enough about his rights to demand a lawyer, but didn't know that he could remain silent (see the other stories floating around that he stopped talking once he was given his Miranda warnings)? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

no, it makes perfect sense. ever watched Law and Order? CSI? those shows either give you flat out wrong information or distort it into uselessness. cops aren't stupid (brutal and thuggish perhaps, but not stupid), they know a lot of people watch those shows and they know the law. they know they can push things and most people don't actually know their rights.

This About That:Yeah, about that whole "rights of the accused" business: we can't afford to destroy that. It's not about the rights of some shiathead we all hate, it's about the rights of the rest of us. If you think you can't become "the accused" in an instant, think again. If you think law enforcement, prosecutors, grand juries, and the media can't destroy your life, reputation and livelihood, and take from you everything you love or have earned, while making your friends and neighbors and the public despise you, think again. If you think "the authorities" give a shiat about you or your rights, think again. Even considering how much nobody likes this moron, the "authorities", whoever that really was, did it wrong, and we can't afford to let it pass. Let's hope the courts make it plain that "the system" still finds it necessary to guarantee the rights of the accused, knowing that this will have to be forced upon law enforcement forever.

Quoting because people can't seem to understand this basic concept. That your Rights are not something to be ignored. Either everyone has them (even the people you hate and wish dead) or no one has them.

I am not entirely certain how to feel about this. On one hand there could have been other bombers planning other strikes and the FBI needed to know if more imminent dangers were present. On the other hand, it's highly unlikely prosecutors will be able to use any statements before mirandizing against him in a court of law, which could seriously hamper prosecution. Cases have been outright dismissed for this sort of thing.

But I have a difficult time seeing this as a violation of the perpetratpr's civil rights specifically. You are protected by civil rights even if you don't know what they are. This, to me, seemed more like a tactical maneuver where the FBI risked future prosecution against the possibility of immediate actionable intelligence to prevent further acts of terrorism or determine if other people were involved in this act. It was a reasonable gambit. However, if a judge rules that pre-Miranda statements are admissible in court, then I would feel sufficiently outraged.

He shouldnt have a lawyer, he should not have been read his rights. He has publicly declared himself in league with an enemy force currently at war with the united states. He should have dissapeard from police custody and never been heard from again by the public while getting raped and waterboarded by saudi torture experts.

This half in/half out shiat is going to bite us in the ass. Either hes the enemy or he's just some farking criminal, pick one and treat him as such.

Shut up, Glenn Greenwald. The point of denying him his Miranda rights was to determine whether there was another bomb or accomplices in the process of carrying out more attacks. Nothing he told the FBI before he was Mirandized is admissable for the purposes of prosecuting him, so it actually HELPS his defense that he confessed before being Mirandized.

Tatsuma:Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

He's already been given two public defenders, he doesn't get to choose his own lawyer.

Weaver95:SkinnyHead: Bontesla: SkinnyHead: He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.

Fruit of the poison tree doctrine...

...doesn't apply to Miranda violations or ignoring a request for counsel. It only applies if he is forced to give an involuntary statement.

would YOU want to take that sort of risk? there was plenty of time to do this one by the numbers. they should have gotten him a lawyer.

The most important information to get out of him would be his Jihadi connections, so they can track down others who might be planning similar attacks. That's why they were questioning him according to the public safety exception. Public safety exception allows them to ignore requests for counsel.

El_Perro:Bontesla: SkinnyHead: He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.

Fruit of the poison tree doctrine...

That would only apply (generally) to evidence obtained as a result of things that he said. All of the videos, witnesses, forensic evidence, etc., that the feds already have on this guy, independent of anything he has said in his interrogation, would not be fruit of the poisonous tree.

they don't need anything he said... they just can't use anything either...

Too bad all it means is that anything he said between his arrest and the reading of his Miranda rights can be excluded.

Also too bad that this explanation is going to be ignored in Lenny/Triumph/truthseeker's rush to prove that we're headed for another Third Reich SEE SEE I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO ME?!??!?!?!!?!?

Tatsuma:Weaver95: would YOU want to take that sort of risk? there was plenty of time to do this one by the numbers. they should have gotten him a lawyer.

No, they didn't have time:

1. He was in critical condition; and, more importantly2. They didn't know if there were other devices about to explode

When they ascertained he wasn't going to die and that was it, he was mirandized and they let get a lawyer and stay silent.

i'm gonna disagree with you there - the cops had little reason to believe there was additional devices that might cause a threat. the city was in lock down after all, and everyone was at home. damage (if any) would have been minimal. the cops had time to play it straight and didn't. what that means to the prosecution, I don't know...probably nothing, since I think we're gonna throw our rulebook out on this one.

Maybe we all shouldn't lose our collective shiat in the aftermaths of these attacks. I hope both the Boston PD and the FBI get sued so we can see exactly what laws and rights they saw as guidelines in their rush to "bring justice."

1. Your inviolable right to representation only comes when you are charged as part of an investigation. If you are being interrogated as a person of interest, it does not apply.2. The police is allowed to hold someone without charging them up to a certain amount of time, and question them without the presence of a lawyer.3. The youngest Tsarnaev was in critical condition and they were scared that he might die, therefore they asked questions on things.4. The reason why they interrogated him in the first place without charging him is because they were afraid there were other devices ready to explode5. Once they ascertained he would survive and that there were no other devices, he was charged and read his rights, and he got to see his lawyer

Tatsuma:He's already been given two public defenders, he doesn't get to choose his own lawyer.

Just because he has been assigned public defenders doesn't mean he can't choose his own lawyer. If he can afford to pay another lawyer, or there is another lawyer who is willing to take on his case pro bono, then he is generally free to switch lawyers at any point (it gets a little more complicated the closer the case gets to trial)

SkinnyHead:The most important information to get out of him would be his Jihadi connections, so they can track down others who might be planning similar attacks. That's why they were questioning him according to the public safety exception. Public safety exception allows them to ignore requests for counsel.

oh I don't think there was any further threat to public safety at that point. the bombs weren't all that sophisticated and the cops knew it by that point. plus they'd searched his house and didn't find anyone else in their little plot. also, given that the city was in lock down damage (if any) would have been minimal at best.

as I said before tho, we're going to throw our rulebooks out on this one. we'll pay lip service to our procedures, then fry him but good. we'll also ignore the damage we've done to our rights and try to tell ourselves that it's all for some vague concept of 'safety' and 'greater good'. meanwhile we'll be terrified of parades, public gatherings and holiday celebrations.